Just as the title asks....do you do this....Process a nice base file in C1 then further adjust in LR?

I am still using the 60-day trial of C1 Pro, but I don't see why I'd want to break up my RAW workflow. The beauty of C1 (or Lightroom or Aperture) is that RAW edits are non-destructive and I can always come back to any point in the process and only render out a JPEG when I'm "done."

What do you find yourself gaining by doing some processing in C1 and the rest in Lightroom?

The one main reason is that Phase One backs only work with tethering to C1. So maybe the files look great due to the P1 camera and the C1 processing (?). So I really like how the files come out of C1. But it doesn't fine tune very easily. It has a clunky interface with clunky way of doing things. so I find LR best to do the fine tuning and finishing. It has the seperate HSL color panel making it straight forward in regards to pulling/pushing adjustments. I like P1 and C1 color above all, but adjusting incremental channels, I find LR does a good joab with ease.

I also like the layout of the panels from top to bottom. Even though C1 can customize things better than LR, and you can have the tools in any order you want. I think LR helps you get things done, vs C1 has adjustment like Lens correction that does an nice job with bringing inner luminosity to dark areas, but why is this a LC tool? I don't find the way they go about most things user friendly or logical. Information is no longer the edge, its the access to it, and LR gives you the access in a easy user interface.

So those are the reasons I leave C1..as soon as I have a solid base processed file. I have tried before to do the process straight out of LR on some subjects, yet I find C1 superior in some ways for the processing "quality"/character. This is so unscientific that I could even be wrong, as it isn't something I can truely measure, but I get more detail and sharpness...it "feels" as if I process less to get the better file. Like I said, that could be due to shooting with the PhaseOne and the C1 combo.

What are you shooting with Bob? What do you shoot? How much do you shoot? Maybe I can help recommend?

What do you find yourself gaining by doing some processing in C1 and the rest in Lightroom?

LR might have better DAM than C1 and LR might be a better/cheaper "PS" than C1 and LR might have better printing and uploading capabilities, you name it... I use RPP and then I use ACR just because I like to remove some certain skin blemishes in ACR rather than do that in PS and then only continue to work in PS, just because for me it is faster that way in ACR (even if you can argue that PS is more powerful) than in PS... so I am using ACR as a "PS" in my case.

All true, but once you process in C1 you have a "frozen" JPEG or TIFF to deal with and can't go back and change things like white balance or noise reduction easily. But if the benefits of LR are worth it over C1's ability, than that's the way you need to go.

Just as the title asks....do you do this....Process a nice base file in C1 then further adjust in LR?

Yes this is the workflow I use except I use Photoshop (currently CS6) not Lightroom. I have friends who take great delight and tell me that I'm a dinosaur. But this works for me. I started this routine when using C1 3.4 and have used more adjustments in C1pro has it has become more sophisticated.

FYI, I set white and black points, and some other "basic" exposure adjustments and noise corrections and use the C1pro sharpening function as my capture sharpening. I have begun using C1pro for LCC and lens correction with better results than in ACR.

Over the years I have done comparisons between tif files processed in C1pro and in ACR/Photoshop each time C1 and/or PS have released new versions. I still like the results and especially the up-rezing that I get from C1pro. I softproof and print from PS.

And yes I am aware that my final file sizes are large and printing from LR has many convenient features.

Phil, I've always enjoyed your turn of phrase and its no different here - and as you've put it, C1 is certainly "clunky". Could put this another way and that's to quote Steve Jobs. He went on to say, "The main thing in our design is that we have to make things intuitively obvious". While Jobs may have got it right, not quite sure if Phase One has. In C1 there's little there that is obvious and hardly anything that's intuitive.

Having said that, C1 7.x has basically "evolutionised" (rather than revolutionised) my images, this to the extent that I've just spent the last month or so working through much of image archive and reworking a lot of my images in there. With C1 7, my finished images - especially my architectural images - now have a clarity and acuity that never seemed to be there before. Well, the RAW data was certainly there but, never to seem to see this in the finished image, until now that is.

Before, I was using Camera Raw (7.3), C1 6 and even Canon's DPP and, in each, never seemed to be able to pull up the detail I had seen and was looking for.

Added to this, I recently acquired a Fuji X-E1. Here I ran the RAW files through both C1 7 and Camera Raw - as a test of sorts. While the results were something of a mixed bag, would hand it over to C1 as producing the better image.

That aside, have long since given up on LR. Shoe shuffling between the Library and Developer modules (and the rest), remembering to update the changed metadata in between and fiddling with all those image editing tools became too much of a distraction in a day's work. This is where C1 has always scored for me - as in all the editing tools being in one place. Compared to Camera RAW/LR, C1's tools may have their idiosyncrasies but, they do the job and IMHO, a pretty decent job at that.

My workflow usually involves downloading my images to their respective drives - computer and external. Then, using Bridge to browse and manage the files - as in renaming, applying metadata and selecting images. After that, work all my selects through Camera RAW and then, convert them into TIFFs. From there, go into CS6 to finish off and then resize the images. For me, this was quick and easy.

With C1 7, I've now basically forsaken Camera RAW - mainly for the reasons stated above. And, like I said, there's little that's obvious or intuitive in C1. In some ways C1 is a bit like working with a command line computing language and where, after a long while and much pushing and poking around, things - like driving a car - start to become "intuitive".

Regarding C1 7's new cataloging features and contrary to what's been said elsewhere in this C1 forum, find this feature a God send. True.

No doubt I may be using catalogs in a way not intended. But then, who cares - as long as it works for me. How so?

As mentioned, I use Bridge to do my image selection. Here you have use ratings - as in the stars thing. For some reason, C1 doesn't seem to pick up on Bridge's colour labels. In C1, I go to the Library icon and create a new or use an existing catalog and then, move/import my selects into this catalog folder. It requires some effort to set up these catalogs and to figure out how to best use them. Like I said, there's little here that is "intuitive" let alone obvious.

The interesting thing that I've found with C1's catalogs is that all my image prep work is now "stored" in one place. In the past, if C1's Sessions weren't set up properly, they would populate themselves all over your hard drive. Now, this new catalog feature does that together with doing a pretty good job of remembering where and on which drives my selects are located.

After doing the image prep, do one of several things - either create a finished file in C1 - as in resized JPEGs or, TIFF's to be finished off in CS6. And that's it.

In C1 you can get to create "recipes" or get use some of the built in presets. These certainly help with the workflow. Over the last month or so now, not exactly sure how many images I've managed to work through but, I could swear, I've managed to get through a lot more work with C1 than using any other method - and I'm talking about preping RAW images and handling most of these on a one on one basis.

As for C1 managing my image archive, forget it. While C1 is now my primary image editing tool, that's all it is. And, in using C1's catalog as I do, this feature serves my purposes well - as in managing my selects. As a DAM tool, not quite sure. For this, the search is still on.

I use LR for the DAM, import at least the X-Pro 1 files into C7 and adjust and get an image ready for tweaking and then it goes back to LR and PS for final editing if needed. Why? I like the DAM in LR better than C7, I find their cataloging clunky, mostly it is just my preference, but when I import something I only want to see the folder where it is stored, sorting things by the data and time I import them is useless for me. Yes I can display the file structure below but that is clunky and not as intuitive as Lightroom. If the cataloging was more like LR I would probably stick with C7 for most things and then go to PS for final tweaking. I really do not find a need for sessions, since I never tether anything it is just something I do not see the need to have. C7 is also a lot slower to load things and adjust things. So it is a mixed bag. Even with the new LR RC4.4 the processing of Fuji X raw files is bit better in C7, Adobe still has some color smearing and some strange smoothing going on.

I use LR for the DAM, import at least the X-Pro 1 files into C7 and adjust and get an image ready for tweaking and then it goes back to LR and PS for final editing if needed. Why? I like the DAM in LR better than C7, I find their cataloging clunky, mostly it is just my preference, but when I import something I only want to see the folder where it is stored, sorting things by the data and time I import them is useless for me. Yes I can display the file structure below but that is clunky and not as intuitive as Lightroom. If the cataloging was more like LR I would probably stick with C7 for most things and then go to PS for final tweaking. I really do not find a need for sessions, since I never tether anything it is just something I do not see the need to have. C7 is also a lot slower to load things and adjust things. So it is a mixed bag. Even with the new LR RC4.4 the processing of Fuji X raw files is bit better in C7, Adobe still has some color smearing and some strange smoothing going on.

Alan

!!

I find the Library in Lightroom to be about the most awkward and clunky DAM I've ever worked with! It is the primary reason (along with the damn modes) that I don't like Lightroom. Aperture's DAM is FAR better, easier and better implemented than either Lightroom or C1. At least C1 is better than Lightroom, for me.

Then I thought about the way people maybe so used to doing something in 1 way and not open to another...As I was about LightRoom. It wasn't long for me to see the ways once I slowed down and tried them a couple times and it worked rather logically.

With C1, You can do differnt functions many times and I still forget some time later, as it isn't logical nor is it visually self explanatory.

Vladimirovich: I don't see how ACR or LR are better at skin blemishes over PS. Also if you do lots of Spot remove in LR it will increase the size of the file/cache. (Of course in PS I do a copy of the layer).

Glad to hear Kerry...and I too use those features you mention. What do you usually shoot Kerry? It maybe a "old way"?, But I think you get most detail from it, from what I can see.

tingyat:

Quote

It requires some effort to set up these catalogs and to figure out how to best use them. Like I said, there's little here that is "intuitive" let alone obvious. - s for C1 managing my image archive, forget it.

This above I completely agree with, and yes I too think the C1 processing is outstanding. I have to give your method a go for using the cataloging to bypass the way Sessions works and then rely on another DAM to manage (I had been using ACDSee before LR). I think if I can get over a few things Tingyat, I would be more in the ballpark you are at...And what do you shoot? I'm wondering also if the size of images come into play. I have now one of 2 catalogs with 190K images in LR. I have taken almost a month put this together, so anything replacing better be solid :-) And thanks for enjoying my verbage..I know sometimes my head things faster than I type and ...well, I try to be clear as possible :-)

snoleopard, I feel much the same way about your C1v7 expereince, I am just a bit less forgiving.

Bob Rockefeller:

Quote

I find the Library in Lightroom to be about the most awkward and clunky DAM I've ever worked with

What DAM's have you worked with? I have used at least 4 rather extensively...and while on the surface I initially felt the way you do about it, but after I took the adaptation as a learning process rather than ALL the answers being so obviously in front of me to click through...It really is straight forward easy. Which I have done the same for C1, even did the C1 University class test and all. If I walk away from LR for a day or so, it is easy to jump back in. If you don't use C1 daily, it is so easy to forget.

eosnead...Interesting!? How big is the catalog you work with? What raw files do you work with?

Well...I was hoping to get more obvious feedback...Although it is clear that more testing is needed.

I will be on the search to find a Raw converter as good as C1 and userfriendly as LR that doesn't deal with a DAM/Catalog. When I do, or if any of you know....PLEASE suggest here.

Perhaps we can make a thread that can list all the Raw dev apps and list their pros and cons. The only thing is that it HAS to develop IQ Phase One files. As I HAVE to tther often, and HAVE to use C1 to capture.(Regardless of IQ raw support, I have so far tried, AfterShotPro, Photovio, DxO (My favorite which I wish would support IQ), ACDSee Pro. Those I remember. I has been some time since I tried Canon Dpp converter. Does Canon raw converter progress much in upgrades? Last I tried it was when I had the 10D

Not joking at all. In Aperture I can create a project and within that project create multiple albums/smart albums, lightboxes and books. They say grouped together and make a nice visual representation of the images there.

Wherever I seen an image, I can click the trash can and it's gone from the database and from the file system (it's in the trash until I empty it).

Keywords work well and I can easily create custom metadata fields and metadata views.

And if I see a thumbnail I want to look at critical, the loupe works anywhere I have an image.

Lightroom does plenty of good things; working the way that feels natural to me in organizing, is not one of them.

I'd say their DAM features are equal. I'd take Aperture's smart album criteria and its list view, but Lightroom's keywording tools and display of both the physical location and virtual organisation - and not being restricted to one brand of computer.

I'd say their DAM features are equal. I'd take Aperture's smart album criteria and its list view, but Lightroom's keywording tools and display of both the physical location and virtual organisation - and not being restricted to one brand of computer.

We'll leave computer brands and their relative superiority alone.

To some, the "physical location" of the file is no doubt important. But not to me, and not in the purest view of DAM. The metadata is a far more important determinate of "where" a file is than the folder it's in on a storage device somewhere. Just like no one cares any longer about which blocks on a hard drive a file is stored in.

If you HAVE to know the location, just create Aperture projects in the file and directory structure of where they're stored. But that's a huge pain. Just like it's a huge pain to create Lightroom collections to match the project structure.

To each their own. Aperture's system is very much more comfortable to me than Lightroom's. And more pertinent here, Capture One's catalog approach is enough like Aperture's that it works for me.